Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
[[Special:Contributions/93.184.73.10|93.184.73.10]] ([[User talk:93.184.73.10|talk]]) 21:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC) |
[[Special:Contributions/93.184.73.10|93.184.73.10]] ([[User talk:93.184.73.10|talk]]) 21:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
:: I tried but don't want to get into an edit war, but it would be helpful if another user or two would review the edits in question.--'''[[User:Lvivske|Львівське]]''' <small>([[User talk:Lvivske|говорити]])</small> 21:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC) |
:: I tried but don't want to get into an edit war, but it would be helpful if another user or two would review the edits in question.--'''[[User:Lvivske|Львівське]]''' <small>([[User talk:Lvivske|говорити]])</small> 21:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
:: As usual those Russian IP editors go completely over-the-top in their editing behaviour, but also as usual if you examine the point of contention calmly there does exist some ground for the underlying complaints. And also as usual blanket reverts of their edits is not productive behaviour, yes Volunteer Marek that is you. I'll start by removing the stuff that is not supported by the sources, which shouldn't be contentious. I'll bring up other issues here on talk first, and there do seem to be other issues. For instance, the reasoning applied in the source is that "because Tatars didn't participate in the referendum the turnout couldn't have been more than 30-40%". If you consider that Tatars only comprise about 12% of the population that looks like a school-child's bad attempt at basic arithmetic.[[User:B01010100|B01010100]] ([[User talk:B01010100|talk]]) 22:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:18, 20 April 2014
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Unbalanced pro-intervention message in Russian media
According to The Economist:
In preparation for Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the Kremlin cleared the last pockets of independent media. Ria Novosti, a state-news agency, which sheltered loyal but liberal-minded journalists, was purged and turned into a blunt propaganda instrument. TV Rain, a private television channel which provided the most objective coverage of the Ukrainian protests, was taken off the air by the main cable providers, acting on the Kremlin’s instructions. The internet, once free of Kremlin control, has been restricted by new, vague laws. On March 12th the editor of one of the most popular news sites, Lenta.ru, was replaced with a pro-Kremlin appointee. Its journalists threatened to resign in protest: “The trouble is not that we won’t have anywhere to work, but that you won’t have anything to read.” Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Mr Putin, labelled anyone objecting to the Kremlin’s actions part of a “nano-sized fifth column”.
A patriotic frenzy whipped up by television muffles any dissent. Television executives who were trained as part of their Soviet-era military services in “special propaganda”, which sought to “demoralise the enemy army and establish control over the occupied territory”, created a virtual enemy in Crimea—fascist revolutionaries whose overthrow of the legitimate government justified the movement of real troops.
People close to Mr Putin say he had been harbouring the idea of taking Crimea since the war in 2008 with Georgia, which resulted in the de facto occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, its two breakaway republics. Yet the context is different. Kirill Rogov, a political columnist, argues that the war in Georgia served as a patriotic accompaniment to Russia’s economic resurgence. Ukraine serves as its substitute.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
BBC is propaganda, not a RS
See for example this video which documents clearly how BBC MADE UP a video depicting a chemical attack in Syria. Given it's track record for lying, alternate sources should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.195 (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- BBC is used as an example in WP:RS under WP:NEWSORG. Remember that WP:RS do not need to be WP:NPOV as it can provide context. If you wish, you can bring your objection to WP:RSN to discuss. Rmosler | ● 05:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Ron Paul has retired
Do we need to read about Pauls family dispute?Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Wat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.42.58 (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Edits
I edited the lead, "Revolution in Kiev" and some other things. I added some facts, which, as I believe, are necessary for the understanding of the events, corrected some inexact phrases and removed sentences which obviously sounded like pro-Russian POV-pushing. I'm not pushing my own POV. I'm trying to make the article as balanced and objective as possible. I think we should lock this article and propose all the changes only on the Talk page. Otherwise, this article will become an object of constant, everyday POV-pushing. Impatukr (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that the article should be semi-protected, like eg. Poland is.Xx236 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Removing neutral paragraphs and replacing them by your own POV pushing is not an improvement. I suggest that the lead would be reverted to the same version as a few days ago.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- when you add in the lead a source that says "This pseudo-referendum was falsified! 30% participation maximum" as if it was a fact, then yes this is POV pushing. This biased opinion should be in reactions, not it the lead. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Response
"The official Russian response was mixed.[248]" This sentence is so wrong... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.212.0 (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why not WP:BE BOLD and edit it? - Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Time for a new article
The Crimean crisis is only part of a much bigger crisis, I think it's time we create a new main article about the whole crisis which began with Euromaidan and now threatens to destabilise the whole region. Charles Essie (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- That would be 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. I've been talking about moving that to something like 2014 Ukrainian crisis and making it a broader article to deal with the overarching crisis. I'd comment there. RGloucester — ☎ 18:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is it a Ukrainian crisis or rather a Rusian crisis which forces the Russian administration to destabilise not only Ukraine?Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's Ukrainian crisis, because it happens in the Ukraine (obviously). Cf: Cuban Missile Crisis (revolved around Soviet-US tensions and threat of nuclear war between them, but still called Cuban, not Soviet or American). Seryo93 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is it a Ukrainian crisis or rather a Rusian crisis which forces the Russian administration to destabilise not only Ukraine?Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
First Partition Of Ukraine
According to current events it may be better to remain the paper to the pattern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Partition_of_Poland 91.77.40.192 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Revolution in Kiev Lead
This whole lead should be removed, its a mess and very one sided and more to the point unnecessary here. Links to 2014 Ukraine Revolution are sufficient and appropriate.Cachi43 (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Tortured hostages
Info on hostages tortured by pro-Russian militias should be added [1] [2]. Andriy Shchekun might be notable enough now to warrant his own article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Links
>> NATO satellite images of Russian troops allegedly deployed en masse at present on Ukrainian borders were taken in August 2013 - Russian MilitaryLihaas (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Voice of Russia is connected with the RT.
- Even Voice of Russia says Allegedly, which means "not at all".Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
One question to VM
Reuters not RS?
Are you serious? Seryo93 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
BBC
If official Russian media are not OK, why is the BBC (British state media) used? That's a serious question, I'm not just trying to say you can only ban RT if you ban the BBC from this article, I just am unsure why the BBC is considered trustworthy for anything other than quotes, dates, and so forth. I'd argue RT is reliable for those sorts of things, too. I'm English, not a Vladimir "Butcher of Grozny" Putin shill, just to be clear. But I am very curious about this seeming double standard applied to state media. AntiqueReader (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- The difference is in how BBC vs RT are described in reliable sources. And whether they satisfy the criteria for reliability. While whether a particular source is state owned or not may play a role it's not the most important, or even a general, criteria. For example, American stations PBS and NPR are state owned but they're probably some of the more critical media outlets when it comes to the US government. So actually whether a media outlet is state owned or not is a bit of a red herring in this discussion. To be reliable a source needs to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". BBC's got it (more or less). RT doesn't. Of course, whether a source is reliable also depends on the question "reliable for what". RT can be used for sourcing simplest facts and under some circumstances (which don't violate WP:UNDUE) to source its own opinions (or those of Putin's government).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Margarita Simonyan (RT) is very open, she doesn't pretend any neutrality. Xx236 (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
US-backed Orange Revolution
It looks like we have a small revert war over the opinion of the "International Centre for Defence Studies". A new user insists that we should put the qualifier "US-backed" before the Orange Revolution. The source does not talk anything whether the Orange Revolution is US-backed or not. I do not think we should put our own synthesis into the source's mouth. I have put "Tallinn-based think tank" before the "International Centre for Defence Studies" to address possible concerns over the neutrality of the source.
The other edit of the same new editor is about "Russia's opinion", I think it can be kept, it is reasonably well-sourced and relevant. I would only changed Russia's opinion to Russian government's or Vladimir Putin's. Russia is a big country and different people there have different opinions Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Can this article be merged anyplace? It seems out of place to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
BBC report: Proposal to rename "Simferopol City" to "Putin City"
This reeks of yellow journalism, but here goes nothing:
- 2014-04-09, В Крыму предложили переименовать Симферополь в Путин, BBC Russian
Apparently a suggestion has been made by the local Crimean party "Russian Unity" (which has pro-RF sentiments) to rename the city to "Putin". That said, I personally don't really think this will happen, and it's too early to say if anything will progress beyond the suggestion. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Legal aspects ?
What is the connection between Legal aspects and Putin's opinion about a Kosovo verdict? What about the other opinion? Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances isn't mentioned. Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Will fix that. Both opinions should be mentioned here, definitely. Seryo93 (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Seemingly Done. Seryo93 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- (addition to above post): I've also balanced amount of text to avoid misbalancing towards Russian position. Seryo93 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Event box on the right hand side too long
I have noticed that the event box stretches for far too long. Most of results are actually events that happened and should be removed or placed in another section. The number of participants and the whole thing seems quite messy as well. I would edit it myself but I feel that I am not experienced enough in this type of editing. --AzraeL9128 (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Using "Pro-Russian militias" in place of Russian military
Why, exactly, are all the mentions of illegal Russian troop military actions being replaced by the use of "Pro-Russian militias"?
These Russian soldiers have already been identified, by near all foreign journalists and UN observers in the regions, as well as by repeated photographic evidence, as Russia military. Almost all cases they are carrying Russian military weapons, wearing Russian military uniforms, that are unavailable in the region. They've even been caught a few times with Russian flags on their vehicles and insignias.
In fact, if I recall, it's a war crime for these Russian soliders to have removed their insignias. Yet a few Russian sock puppets here have been removing all sourced references and replacing them with "Pro-Russian militias".
Can I ask, for the betterment of this article, why this serious (defiantly against Wikipedias policies) issue isn't being addressed? 124.148.223.74 (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Sutter Cane
Historical-style
Now that the majority of the events in Crimea are finished, it seems time to start orienting this article toward a historical perspective. Would anyone be opposed to doing this? RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Edits by user 77.51.99.2
I understand that this article must have generated a vast amount of hot headed users and i find it natural for people to get angry about what the newspapers of their opposite side of the newspaper influence say (in terms of western vs eastern media)
It is alarming that, for example the user 77.51.99.2 with a russian ip has only ever contributed to wikipedia by recently editing articles related to the Ukraine crisis, removing any references criticizing the Russian front or restating the facts in order to contribute to the positive Russian profile.
I believe this behavior may be dangerous for keeping the neutrality of the wikipedia intact and advice to revise or revert the edits made by this user. I have purposely not in engaged in such action, as i would not like to act hastily and would be glad if someone else also revised the user's actions.
93.184.73.10 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- As usual those Russian IP editors go completely over-the-top in their editing behaviour, but also as usual if you examine the point of contention calmly there does exist some ground for the underlying complaints. And also as usual blanket reverts of their edits is not productive behaviour, yes Volunteer Marek that is you. I'll start by removing the stuff that is not supported by the sources, which shouldn't be contentious. I'll bring up other issues here on talk first, and there do seem to be other issues. For instance, the reasoning applied in the source is that "because Tatars didn't participate in the referendum the turnout couldn't have been more than 30-40%". If you consider that Tatars only comprise about 12% of the population that looks like a school-child's bad attempt at basic arithmetic.B01010100 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)