Donjoe

Removal of content on International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis

Please explain this edit summary. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As shown in the edit description, I think too much politically-irrelevant material was included about the US' reaction and consequently the US section was taking up a very visibly disproportionate length of the page compared to the other countries. Including 10 times more text about what the US thinks about the Crimean crisis suggests implicitly to the reader that what the US thinks is 10 times more important than what any other country thinks, which it is not the job of Wikipedia to imply - this is not a US propaganda website. At the very least the information included should've been kept on the official and politically-relevant side, i.e. official administrative measures (e.g. sanctions against Russia) or communications directed at the subject countries (i.e. at Russian or Ukrainian officials), not random comments made to the press by random US officials in their spare time.

Sorry, but that argument simply does not stand up to reason. The United States has been the biggest responder to this crisis on the international level, and the article reflected that. Whether or not you find the US' actions/statements relevant, is of no concern. And any removal of information should have been discussed on the talk page first, as any one editor is not a unilateral authority on what is or is not included in this encyclopedia. Especially considering you removed a statement by the National Security Council spokeswoman regarding their choice to not send a presidential delegation to the Sochi paralympic games, which was not only highly notable but entirely relevant. Unlike how you attempted to frame it above, this was not just some "random US [official] in their spare time"... this is the NSC spokesperson (who happens to get paid specifically for this purpose). If you have an anti-american slant or are against the particulars of how the US has handled this international crisis that's fine... but it doesn't give you credence to claim that others are spreading propaganda by putting notable, verifiable information onto an encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

1. "The biggest responder" according to whom and in what sense? And how does that justify including more material for the sake of including more material?

2. Who said that any removal of information should be discussed first? Are you making up the rules of Wikipedia according your own tastes now?

3. OK, the NSC quote was relevant, but I stand by my removal of that ridiculous piece with the Adolf Hitler comparison and also of any piece from lower-ranking officials that doesn't add anything substantial to what the higher-ranking officials had already said (e.g. too much was there from Kerry and it wasn't necessary to give a clear impression of the US reaction as long as the pieces about Obama were also there). The page is not supposed to be a full account of everything every US official said to any reporter in any interview about Crimea since Feb. 26th.

Donjoe (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

1. According to all available media outlets, and in all senses (military, political and economic action). You may need to do some more research on this before you try to come across as an expert.

2. I'm referring to the idea that this is a collaborative project, and while we encourage being bold we also greatly encourage discussion when removing content from articles (especially articles of this nature). I've been an administrator here for over 6 years, so I recommend you lose the attitude.

3. My entire issue with your edit was the removal of the NSC quote, to which you have now shown you had absolutely no basis to remove. This is why I'm harping on the importance of discussion. It helps prevent people from making terrible calls when editing a high-vis/importance article. To your final statement: that's an absurd strawman. The page was never that, and it was nowhere close to that even with the other quotes in there.

Try doing this: step away from your clearly combative approach, discuss removal of content with other editors, and don't ever attempt to claim this encyclopedia is aiming to spread US propaganda. Do those things, and I'm sure you'll be smooth sailing from here on out. Don't, and you'll most likely be hearing from me again. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Case reports

Have removed the case report. We do not use these as references. We typically only use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)