• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’ve already explained, using the definition Wikipedia gives, Russia does not fit that. Wikipedia is not written by a single person, nor do the analysts that claim Russia is imperialist write the definitions given by Wikipedia as their claimed definition. It’s also possible for someone to give a definition, have that definition not apply to something, yet still have that same person incorrectly apply it. Moreover, Wikipedia is saying some analysts, not even taking a definitive stance itself.

    Wikipedia is indeed popular in the west. So is Fox News and CNN, NYT, etc. That doesn’t mean they are correct or valid.

    Why do you dodge the question of sovereignty for Donetsk and Luhansk?

    • Saapas@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      You don’t think it fits, but the sources in the article certainly do.

      Moreover, Wikipedia is saying some analysts, not even taking a definitive stance itself.

      Wikipedia uses that sort of wording pretty often

      UjQ9cki4wAuGiJW.png

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        The analysts are wrong, as I explained. Wikipedia does indeed refuse to take a stance on most things, it’s a terrible source for political history and current events. Sometimes the sources can be nice, but often they are terrible.

        Why do you dodge the question of sovereignty for Donetsk and Luhansk?

        • Saapas@piefed.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          Your disagreement with the analysts and the articles has been noted. I don’t think there’s anything else to do here than agree to disagree.