Talk:Revolution of Dignity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the newsNews items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 19, 2014, and February 23, 2014.
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 18, 2024.

Russian propaganda[edit]

I just restored the use of the term "Russian propaganda" instead of Putin as the proponent of the theory that the revolution was a coup. The coup-narrative is one of the key elements of the Russian justification of anti-Ukrainian aggression and therefore should be explicitly named as an element of Russian propaganda. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This article is not a place for broadcasting Putin's words. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you use a direct quotation, you must then provide immediate attribution to a person, not some nebulous idea. See MOS:QUOTE. Anything less is simply false writing. To attribute to "Russian propaganda" requires a source that says just that. Interpreting a press conference from Vladimir Putin to be synonymous with the message of "Russian propaganda" in general is WP:Original research or WP:Synth, depending on how you justify it. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You are edit warring. You are supposed to reach consensus before re-adding your changes first. Please undo your changes and seek consensus. Thanks!
Sources say just what you require. Wilson p. VI : Except that the coup was not in Kiev, as Russian propaganda claimed, but in Crimea a week later. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few citation, the fact russian propaganda calls it a coup is obvious and there a tonnes of sources for it—blindlynx 22:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should have no trouble rewriting the section with an indirect quotation and a supporting source. (See e.g. WP:INTEXT for examples relevant to this.) What we have now is a direct quotation of Putin himself at a specific press conference, which requires specific in-line attribution.
Regarding Wilson and Crimea, that's great, and it's cited. As you will note in my comments here and my thorough edit summaries, I did not delete this, but I instead moved it to the section on Crimea. If you want to say what you want to say, you have to write it in proper encyclopedic prose, and not in this point-counterpoint format (that is inherently argumentative). SamuelRiv (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added three sources and there isn't a direct citation anyways.
Regarding the crimea bit it's relevant given according to sources is an actual coup and so we should provide that context right after talking about russian claims of a coup. Either way there isn't consensus for your changes, please self revert—blindlynx 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to understand that a direct quotation has to be to be found explicitly in the cited reference, otherwise it fails WP:Verifiability. Attributing a public quotation from Putin -- which one source quotes -- to something else -- which a source does not quote -- also fails verification. Verifiability is the minimum standard of inclusion for content on Wikipedia. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded it slightly to avoid the misapprehension that the coup part is a direct quote—blindlynx 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need Putin. I provided direct quote above, thanks! You moved it to Crimea section. It can be in that section, but it should also remain in a section where it was before. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me now. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Level of support for Yanukovych[edit]

The page currently states:

"Yanukovych was widely disliked in Ukraine's west but had some support in the east and south, where his native Russian is much more widely spoken". Emphasis mine.

However, the referenced article that was apparently sourced from actually says:

"Yanukovych is widely despised in Ukraine's west, but has strong support in his native Russia-speaking east, as well as south."

Again emphasis mine. The editor changing "strong" to "some" is clearly biased. Article appears locked so I can't correct. 31.52.143.133 (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is from 20.2.2014 and is outdated. I replaced the sentence with another from better, actual academic source. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to main article[edit]

NoonIcarus, explain the reason for deleting the link to the main article in the subsection on United States support for the Revolution. wp:povfork blatantly inappropriate as the main article is written from academic sources. Алексей Юрчак (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Алексей Юрчак: Could you please let me know to which edit you're referring to? I can't find it. You might be confusing me for @Blindlynx:. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I got confused with Blindlynx. I apologize. Алексей Юрчак (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Алексей Юрчак I restored it. I don't understand why it was removed.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a POV fork. At the very least the deletion discussion should finish before restoring it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Discussion about U.S. involvement[edit]

This topic and article are mentioned here:

--David Tornheim (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant[edit]

--David Tornheim (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revolution_of_Dignity&oldid=1226954805"