Talk:Revolution of Dignity: Difference between revisions
→Appreciation to the Authors: Spelling + Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
:: Wiki purportedly has editorial teams composed of competent researchers. The absence of scholarly research reduces any publication to the level of pop hearsay, as indicated previously, no better than the commercial news dedicated to corporate interest and rehearsed material to sell cosmetics. The absence of the two foremost historians on the subject of coupe de etat, promoted by the United States, does not invalidate the Wiki op. ed. piece (it calls its competence into question). However, '''the complete absence of any sociological and historical sources entirely invalidates''' a Wiki piece citing to mere corporate news media (the news is not verifiable and does not purport to be informed knowledge). That no one, assigned to the Wiki Ukrainian coupe team, has ever heard of Noam Chomsky underlines the lack of interest in critical research at Wiki Ukraine. It is pointless to provide critical research to a crew, which writes in the first person "I" and has never heard of Noam Chomsky or William Blum. There is no alternative to the heavy lifting of research. |
:: Wiki purportedly has editorial teams composed of competent researchers. The absence of scholarly research reduces any publication to the level of pop hearsay, as indicated previously, no better than the commercial news dedicated to corporate interest and rehearsed material to sell cosmetics. The absence of the two foremost historians on the subject of coupe de etat, promoted by the United States, does not invalidate the Wiki op. ed. piece (it calls its competence into question). However, '''the complete absence of any sociological and historical sources entirely invalidates''' a Wiki piece citing to mere corporate news media (the news is not verifiable and does not purport to be informed knowledge). That no one, assigned to the Wiki Ukrainian coupe team, has ever heard of Noam Chomsky underlines the lack of interest in critical research at Wiki Ukraine. It is pointless to provide critical research to a crew, which writes in the first person "I" and has never heard of Noam Chomsky or William Blum. There is no alternative to the heavy lifting of research. |
||
::: Very well. The commentary above duly points out the insufficiencies in the selection of sources for this article. This article is overly reliant on the popular news media and makes little use of the academic research on the topic. This assessment is supported by [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources|the editorial policy of Wikipedia on selection of sources]]. According to this policy, news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact; when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Selection of sources is a complicated and contentious matter requiring both time and competence to properly address, and allowing anyone claiming to have academic credentials to determine facts would be no better solution to this dilemma than the one presently deployed. Wikipedia does not have an editorial team assigned to this article, competent or otherwise: Wikipedia is edited entirely by volunteers. These volunteers are not required to present any academic credentials, and may edit the articles anonymously without disclosing their identities at all. That being said, knowledge of the topics at hand and an ability to express this knowledge in a comprehensible manner are often looked upon with favor. If the author of the above commentary finds him- or herself willing and able to review the article in some depth and suggest specific editorial changes in the article, such contributions would be very welcome. [[User:Heptor|Heptor]] ([[User talk:Heptor|talk]]) 10:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC) |
::: Very well. The commentary above duly points out the insufficiencies in the selection of sources for this article. This article is overly reliant on the popular news media and makes little use of the academic research on the topic. This assessment is supported by [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources|the editorial policy of Wikipedia on selection of sources]]. According to this policy, news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact; when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Selection of sources is a complicated and contentious matter requiring both time and competence to properly address, and allowing anyone claiming to have academic credentials to determine facts would be no better solution to this dilemma than the one presently deployed. Wikipedia does not have an editorial team assigned to this article, competent or otherwise: Wikipedia is edited entirely by volunteers. These volunteers are not required to present any academic credentials, and may edit the articles anonymously without disclosing their identities at all. That being said, knowledge of the topics at hand and an ability to express this knowledge in a comprehensible manner are often looked upon with favor. If the author of the above commentary finds him- or herself willing and able to review the article in some depth and suggest specific editorial changes in the article, such contributions would be very welcome. [[User:Heptor|Heptor]] ([[User talk:Heptor|talk]]) 10:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::: What's funny is that it's quite obvious no Ukrainian sources were cited. There was no revolution, it was a coup - just ask ANY Ukrainian. Funny to see this entire site reduced to corporate propaganda. |
|||
== Signing of the association agreement == |
== Signing of the association agreement == |
||
Revision as of 21:53, 2 October 2019
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Revolution of Dignity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | A news item involving Revolution of Dignity was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 February 2014. |  |
| A news item involving Revolution of Dignity was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 February 2014. | |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Revolution of Dignity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Appreciation to the Authors
I just wanted to thank you for the accurate page, despite the overwhelming propaganda. During the revolution I lived in Podil, at the bottom of the hill below the center, on Sagaydachnogo below where the stacks of tires were used to blocked the road, and near the Funicular. All I saw were good people, from every walk of life, desperate for a better life, seeking to end a corrupt government. Slava Ukrayini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:4100:1304:45D:DE32:F6BE:6643 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Possible improvements to the article
First of all, I think that the article is in a decent shape. But when I tried to make the article illegible for the Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries (better known as the Wikipedia:On this day/Today section on Wikipedia main page) fellow Wikipedian howcheng pointed out some points for improvement for the article which I agree with. Unfortunately I lack time these days too give the article a good maintenance job, but feel free to do so. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Corruption in Ukraine
Corruption in Ukraine is prominently mentioned in the background section of the article. Is there any reason to mention corruption in this particular context? As can be seen in the article linked in the previous sentence, Ukraine is indeed profoundly corrupt. The leaders of the 2014 revolution promised less corruption, but it seems like Ukraine remains pretty corrupt despite this promise. Also, the statement "After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine endured years of corruption" suggests that Ukraine wasn't corrupt before the breakup of the Soviet Union, which is dubious. Heptor (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Questionable competence
The article does not cite William Blum and Noam Chomsky, the foremost historians on the subject of the Washington Connection and coupe de etat against democratically elected leaders. This Wiki post focuses on commercial news media, which as indicated by Michael Parenti in "Inventing Reality," are not sources for informed knowledge but are disseminators of corporate interests and toothpaste. The article must critically examine a coupe de etat against a democratically elected leader and the United Nations Charter on such subject matter. The absence of any citation to Blum and Chomsky call into question the critical competence of this Wiki post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Losduarte (talk • contribs)
- We all agree that this article can be improved, although I must express my skepticism towards your assessment as to which degree the quality of this article hinges on presence or absence of citations by these two historians you mention. Do you have any specific citations in mind that you think would be relevant? Heptor (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wiki purportedly has editorial teams composed of competent researchers. The absence of scholarly research reduces any publication to the level of pop hearsay, as indicated previously, no better than the commercial news dedicated to corporate interest and rehearsed material to sell cosmetics. The absence of the two foremost historians on the subject of coupe de etat, promoted by the United States, does not invalidate the Wiki op. ed. piece (it calls its competence into question). However, the complete absence of any sociological and historical sources entirely invalidates a Wiki piece citing to mere corporate news media (the news is not verifiable and does not purport to be informed knowledge). That no one, assigned to the Wiki Ukrainian coupe team, has ever heard of Noam Chomsky underlines the lack of interest in critical research at Wiki Ukraine. It is pointless to provide critical research to a crew, which writes in the first person "I" and has never heard of Noam Chomsky or William Blum. There is no alternative to the heavy lifting of research.
- Very well. The commentary above duly points out the insufficiencies in the selection of sources for this article. This article is overly reliant on the popular news media and makes little use of the academic research on the topic. This assessment is supported by the editorial policy of Wikipedia on selection of sources. According to this policy, news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact; when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Selection of sources is a complicated and contentious matter requiring both time and competence to properly address, and allowing anyone claiming to have academic credentials to determine facts would be no better solution to this dilemma than the one presently deployed. Wikipedia does not have an editorial team assigned to this article, competent or otherwise: Wikipedia is edited entirely by volunteers. These volunteers are not required to present any academic credentials, and may edit the articles anonymously without disclosing their identities at all. That being said, knowledge of the topics at hand and an ability to express this knowledge in a comprehensible manner are often looked upon with favor. If the author of the above commentary finds him- or herself willing and able to review the article in some depth and suggest specific editorial changes in the article, such contributions would be very welcome. Heptor (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- What's funny is that it's quite obvious no Ukrainian sources were cited. There was no revolution, it was a coup - just ask ANY Ukrainian. Funny to see this entire site reduced to corporate propaganda.
- Very well. The commentary above duly points out the insufficiencies in the selection of sources for this article. This article is overly reliant on the popular news media and makes little use of the academic research on the topic. This assessment is supported by the editorial policy of Wikipedia on selection of sources. According to this policy, news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact; when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Selection of sources is a complicated and contentious matter requiring both time and competence to properly address, and allowing anyone claiming to have academic credentials to determine facts would be no better solution to this dilemma than the one presently deployed. Wikipedia does not have an editorial team assigned to this article, competent or otherwise: Wikipedia is edited entirely by volunteers. These volunteers are not required to present any academic credentials, and may edit the articles anonymously without disclosing their identities at all. That being said, knowledge of the topics at hand and an ability to express this knowledge in a comprehensible manner are often looked upon with favor. If the author of the above commentary finds him- or herself willing and able to review the article in some depth and suggest specific editorial changes in the article, such contributions would be very welcome. Heptor (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Wiki purportedly has editorial teams composed of competent researchers. The absence of scholarly research reduces any publication to the level of pop hearsay, as indicated previously, no better than the commercial news dedicated to corporate interest and rehearsed material to sell cosmetics. The absence of the two foremost historians on the subject of coupe de etat, promoted by the United States, does not invalidate the Wiki op. ed. piece (it calls its competence into question). However, the complete absence of any sociological and historical sources entirely invalidates a Wiki piece citing to mere corporate news media (the news is not verifiable and does not purport to be informed knowledge). That no one, assigned to the Wiki Ukrainian coupe team, has ever heard of Noam Chomsky underlines the lack of interest in critical research at Wiki Ukraine. It is pointless to provide critical research to a crew, which writes in the first person "I" and has never heard of Noam Chomsky or William Blum. There is no alternative to the heavy lifting of research.
Signing of the association agreement
In the second paragraph of the lead, the article states that "President Yanukovych [...] ultimately decided not to sign [the association agreement with the EU]". Somewhat randomly, in this interivew, Lavrov says that Yanokovich was merely postponing it ("just to postpone it, mind you, not to cancel it altogether!", as he put it). Is this a correct recollection of the events? Do we have sources for stating that he ultimately decided not to sign the agreement? Heptor (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)