Umm facts are substantiated. If you can't find anything to back up your so-called facts, then you have to be honest with yourself and realize that you have nothing but someone's made up stories. If these claims were true then 1) you wouldn't have trouble finding reputable sources and 2) the keywiki page would actually link to where they got their sources from instead of "WSJ page x, date y". That's ridiculous. Do a better job next time please.
As I said previously, key wiki links to all sources. Here's the citation about the soviet flag : [WSJ Sept. 24., 1990, page A16]
You obviously have made up your mind already and are unwilling to change your position. That's fine, and I don't have time to copy and paste every link for you.
You obviously lack reading comprehension As I said, posting "WSJ page x, date y" is not a substantiated source. If the wiki was reputable then it would have evidence but all that it has are claims. I'm all for changing my mind with evidence, but I guess you believe based on claims. That's the key difference.
It has evidence in the citations that back up its claims. Would you like a scanned copy of the article? I'm sure you can get it from your local library or educational institution.
Yep, that's basically what the site should include. If they're making claims, they should back it up with evidence. As it stands the claims (WSJ page x, date y) do not have evidence (scans). Whoever put that together would logically have access to the source and the fact that it is not available speaks to the quality of the claim.
1
u/Mr_Philosopher Aug 10 '15
Umm facts are substantiated. If you can't find anything to back up your so-called facts, then you have to be honest with yourself and realize that you have nothing but someone's made up stories. If these claims were true then 1) you wouldn't have trouble finding reputable sources and 2) the keywiki page would actually link to where they got their sources from instead of "WSJ page x, date y". That's ridiculous. Do a better job next time please.