Talk:Revolution of Dignity

Russian propaganda

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)

Yes. This article is not a place for broadcasting Putin's words. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've reworded it slightly to avoid the misapprehension that the coup part is a direct quote—blindlynx 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Looks fine to me now. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Level of support for Yanukovych

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)

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)

Link to main article

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)

@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)

Of course, I got confused with Blindlynx. I apologize. Алексей Юрчак (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Алексей Юрчак I restored it. I don't understand why it was removed.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

There are lots of these on the article's talk page. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Relevant Discussion about U.S. involvement

This topic and article are mentioned here:

• Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#2014_Ukraine (permalink)

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

Also relevant

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution

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

Use of the loaded term "Russian Propaganda"

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)

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)

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)

It should be clear by now, but it shouldn't hurt to remind of WP:NOTFORUM. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Yes, there are 3 academic references for "propaganda". Not Western media. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)