Talk:Russky Bridge

Name
It's been officially named Russky bridge. --Гагыдза (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was Page moved. Uncontroversial request to move from a descriptive title to the recently adopted real name.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2012; 15:20 (UTC) Bridge to Russky Island → Russky Bridge – Russky Bridge is a oficial name of the Bridge. Approved September 3, 2012. 77.35.35.147 (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

criticism
why is that everytime i see in a russia article there is a section for criticism even for projects to move the country forward??? So the bridge is useless for 5000 People??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3-C-gEdpKw

check out youtube and you will see the average day on this bridge, does this look like it isnt being used??? And its just some months since its open. Western media should look at them self they are full of debt russia isnt.--Shokioto22 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if the country were moved forward within the original budget limits, then there wouldn't be a need for Criticism section :) At any rate, Wikipedia merely summarizes the reliable sources. The bridge was criticized; fairly or not, that's not up to Wikipedians to decide. It is, however, our duty to summarize those reports. Whether the entity is in Russia or any other country is quite beyond the point here; the only thing that matters is whether there are reliable sources to support the statements being made. The actual conclusions (such as "the bridge is useless", or "the bridge is very useful", or "the bridge is useful, but cost way too much") should be drawn by the readers, not by the editors.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 23, 2012; 20:04 (UTC)

You are completely right. Taking into account that just in the Far Eastern Federal University there are 41,000 students, and the new facilities which are being built, probably on the midterm two new lines will have to be added to the bridge...but them the "criticism" will say that it was not enough for so much traffic, lol.--90.162.24.163 (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

-yeah but what you dont get is that the anglo american media is much more powerful in comparison to the russian media because america has obviously a higher gdp not to mention about the other us allies which are russophobic as well. BBC makes such article every day about russia. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral since editors have the option to write what they want if they can back it up with articles, but if they majority of articles out there are a certain view wikipedia gets influenced by the majority (which was established by money not neutral view). As i said america has the highest gdp in the world plus their allies which make probably half of the world economy. Its not about truth anymore but who has more power.--Shokioto22 (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The language of the criticism section makes it easy for the reader to draw the conclusion that the bridge exists to serve the 5000 or so people that live on the island at the time, as opposed to the 590,000+ people that live in the city who now all have easy access to the island for recreation and future development. Just an eyeball on a google earth pic of the area makes it obvious the bridge exists to serve the city and its future development.207.70.160.29 (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)