• Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    Well if you’re already reading a wiki article I’m not sure how you’d have trouble matching the source. As I said elsewhere they got the distribution wrong, but you’re making it sound like you’re just here to JAQ off.

    • iceonfire1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      IDK why you’re trying to source someone else’s comment for them, but if you read the comment and the wiki you would see that they are not in agreement.

      This is why I asked for their source. Sorry if you find that offensive for some reason lol

      • Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Correct, as I said elsewhere they got the distribution wrong because they are working off memory, but it’s not difficult to link the numbers - they mistook the police and army as having the same number of deaths as civilian protestors rather than student protestors, but the total roughly matches and there’s only one source that makes that specific distinction between groups rather than a general guess at a total. I don’t understand why you’re so upset about being told the source after asking for the source.

        • iceonfire1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          So just to clarify, you think that:

          1.) you can provide the correct source for another person’s statement

          2.) what you posted qualifies as a source even though you did not give one

          3.) it’s OK if the statement does not agree with the source

          4.) you can justify your misattribution by cherry-picking a number that “roughly” agrees if you massage it

          Bruh.