Jump to content

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.

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]
Make an argument in favor of the article being a POV fork. It is almost entirely written from academic sources. Алексей Юрчак (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of these on the article's talk page. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the loaded term "Russian Propaganda"

[edit]

I restored the language to more neutral language. Although some sources do use the pejorative phrase "Russian propaganda", I did not see the phrase in the sources used for the sentence in sentence. (I do not have access to most of the sources.) For consistency, I rarely see the one-sided claims made in Western media (e.g. Propaganda_in_the_United_States) referred to as propaganda--like the WMDs used to justify the Iraq War (see Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War,[1],[2],[3],[4],[5], [6],[7],[8],[9]) and the countless images of mushroom clouds suggesting that Iraq was on the verge of launching ICBMs. Yet, when I search the Iraq War article for the term "propaganda" nothing comes up.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In restoring the loaded language, NoonIcarus wrote: "Described by the sources as such". Which sources used that loaded term? --David Tornheim (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources include: Gerber, Theodore P; Zavisca, Jane (Summer 2016). "Does Russian Propaganda Work?". Washington Quarterly. 39 (2): 79–98. doi:10.1080/0163660X.2016.1204398.. If there is enough use by reliable sources, which there is, the term should be used. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be clear by now, but it shouldn't hurt to remind of WP:NOTFORUM. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The loaded term was also introduced here. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are 3 academic references for "propaganda". Not Western media. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is neutrally reporting what reliable sources say. Russian propaganda is described in reliable sources as such. And: Also a lot of Russians describe Russian propaganda as what it is. Only, those Russians had to flee from their home country, have been jailed, or murdered. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We talked about this a few months ago it hasn't even been archived yet! there are plenty of academic sources for this!!!—blindlynx 13:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you shouldn't be removing stuff because you don't have access to sources. Are you seriously arguing that because we don't have sources for something unrelated to we should remove sourced claims here?—blindlynx 17:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you shouldn't be removing stuff because you don't have access to sources. I did not remove the term "propaganda." As I explained above, I restored the original neutral language "Russian media" from the loaded term "propaganda" by reverting this edit. I followed WP:BRD by reverting a bold edit and discussing.
I reverted (to restore the more neutral language) because this edit that added the loaded term relied on the *exact* same sources that the neutral original had used. I was *transparent* that I was unable to look at all of the sources, and that is why I asked which sources used the loaded term.
What I did not know when I reverted was that the original more neutral language "Russian media" was created by the same editor (Rsk6400) who changed it to the more loaded term--only 4 hours later. At the time I reverted following WP:BRD, I mistakenly thought a different editor had provided the neutral language and Rsk6400 provided a different interpretation of the sources by changing it to loaded language.
I did not see the term "propaganda" prominently in the sources provided that I *did* check, and that's why I *asked* Which sources used that loaded term? with edit summary "Request identification of which "sources describe it as such"".
Also, I have repeatedly asked about how to access a source whose content was disputed, and I am getting no cooperation or suggestion whatsoever on how I can do that--expect for Manyareasexpert's comment that it so outdated, suggesting it may not be worth bothering to look at. One pillar of Wikipedia is WP:V. How can I verify a claim about material in a source, check a quote, check if material was "cherry-picked", check if key conclusions or context are omitted, etc. as have been alleged, if I cannot access the source(s) used to support the claim?
Please assume good faith rather than making such an accusation against me.--David Tornheim (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for not being clear. I don't think you're acting in bad faith that said WP:SOURCEACCESS is a park of wp:v and wp:AGF extends to assuming that other editors are using sources they have access too and we don't accurately.
Given that russian media and propaganda are heavily intertwined but not all russian media is propaganda i think that propaganda is a more accurate term in this case.
The Tomkiw; Richter; and Geber papers explicitly use the term.
Could you please explain what the iraq war has to do with this?—blindlynx 23:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're acting in bad faith Thank you.
Could you please explain what the iraq war has to do with this? Double-standards on Wikipedia. U.S. propaganda is not labelled as U.S. propaganda in Iraq war--when I hope we can all agree that the justification for going to that war was propaganda--while non-U.S. countries' propaganda for making similar arguments is identified as such. For the Iraq war, rather than saying that U.S. propaganda claimed ..., the article attributes those views to the proponents in the administration (e.g. Bush/Cheney) which were uncritically echoed in the U.S. mainstream media.
I do agree that if the WP:RS calls it propaganda, then it is acceptable to call it that in the article, although I have the feeling that WP:MOS policy suggests such emotive loaded terms be attributed rather than used in Wiki-voice, such as described in MOS:QUOTEPOV. I can't say I have had a lot of experience with debates between those who want to include a loaded term and those who disagree and how those disagreements were resolved.
My overall sense from WP:MOS and MOS:WTW is that loaded terms are generally to be avoided in preference of a more neutral wiki-voice. I welcome suggestions about where I might look at similar disagreements on the use of loaded language in wiki-voice. Such a discussion about the use might be better in another forum. Not sure where that might--possibly the talk page of WP:MOS and/or MOS:WTW.--David Tornheim (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we do not want to be presenting fringe---or in this case propaganda---uncritically, simply labelling 'coup' and other such news as propaganda avoids dancing round the point, we have peer reviewed academic papers that discuss russian propaganda around maiden.
You're welcome to bring up RS for US propaganda at that page. —blindlynx 12:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit by Manyareasexpert is an improvement and more similar to how the Iraq War focuses more on the administration's biased and/or factually questionable narrative rather entirely on the media of the country that kowtows and uncritically parrots the administration's preferred narrative. I have definitely seen WP:RS that says that Putin (and probably also representatives of the Russian government like Lavrov) have made the claims. Part of the purpose of WP:NPOV is to get competing interpretations of events by important actors like the presidents of super-powers who have major influence on those events--even if those claims are proved to be completely false. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not A, not even B

[edit]

@Closed Limelike Curves: Please stop edit warring. For academic sources that cover this not-so-current event, see my comment at Talk:Revolution_of_Dignity/Archive_10#Arbitrary_break. Also: An "A" rating normally needs a review, see the pages on rating. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rsk6400 Edit warring? I am not seeing it. Can you please provide diffs? The editor hasn't even edited the article at all.[10]. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing Closed Limelike Curves and I think they know that they were edit warring on this talk page. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. Now I see. [11][12]. I suggest when you accuse others of edit-warring that you provide the diffs, so it's clear. I didn't understand the title about A or B. It's so rare to see edit-warring on the talk page. I had seen the this change and was going to revert myself, except that I am not sufficiently familiar with the process of how articles are assessed. I am glad you had reverted it. Sorry for any confusion.--David Tornheim (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim feel free to nominate this for GA status, then, so I can give it an A-class rating when it's approved. :) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under “Aftermath”\“Protests against the revolution”

[edit]

In the last paragraph there may be a confusion between people and the parliament and the reference is wrong or non-existent; I would had deleted that last sentence of the last paragraph Taltzgcz (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Revolution of Dignity" who coined the name, and when did it come into usage?

[edit]

Who coined the term "Revolution of Dignity", and when did it come into usage? Why is the word "dignity" in the name, and how does that relate to the events in Ukraine? There is no mention of this in this entire padlocked article. Could a Wikipedia power user please add some information about where the name "Revolution of Dignity" came from?120.88.155.223 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC) 120.88.155.223 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just the heading tells me all I need to know about this article and Wikipedia in general. "The Ukraine revolution (2014)" is the obvious and only title that this article should have. It is clear, descriptive and unbiased. This kind of BS is why Wikipedia is going the same way as the large corporate propaganda outlets. It was once a useful resource; it is now is pure political propaganda. 206.83.119.213 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm not educated on this topic but consensus was made here [13] (under sections "Title change" and "Requested move 16 November 2021"). If you believe that "this article and Wikipedia in general" are biased, feel free to contribute. You can request the article name to be changed if your reasoning is valid and verifiable by reliable secondary sources. Cheers, xRozuRozu (t • c) 05:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revolution_of_Dignity&oldid=1260911837"