Talk:Euromaidan/Archive 12014/April

POV

I haven't been following this article as much as I wish I did, but there are several clearly POV statements and sentences that make this article really one-sided. It's nice to see that there are many users who are interested in editing this article, but it is worrying that some are so biased that they don't even see it.

The section I've opened a while ago that went largely unnoticed comes to say that many of the users who contribute to this article are not interested in its impartiality.

A quick glance at the infobox reveals very serious problems.

• "no state officials were held responsible, and a number of random [?!?] people were imprisoned"; it's beyond me how this kind of a sentence can ever be considered NPOV and encyclopedic
• inclusion of Russia as a side of the civil conflict is simply unacceptable (in fact, EU and most active EU states such as Poland can be included there because numerous EU officials and EU member state officials have visited Maidan, which is a direct participation in the protests as opposed to Russia's indirect and debatable role)

--Երևանցի ^talk 20:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on point 1, but I can't be the only one reverting or else I'll look like a bad guy. On point #2...why not? Sources are there, Russian bikers were sent in; Don Cossacks from Russia are in the country now, spec. troops from Russia have been video taped, etc. is that POVy or what? (honest question) --Львівське (говорити) 02:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

We should probably define "Russia" first. Are we talking about its government or various groups from Russia? Both bikers and Don Cossacks are de facto NGOs, right? Even if there is solid evidence that Russian govt forces have been (or still are) in Ukraine, that doesn't really prove the fact that they are [actively] engaged in the conflict. No, of course not, Russia's inclusion per se is not POV. If Russia is, indeed, engaged in the conflict then I don't have any problem with its inclusion. And also, if we are adding Russia, why not add the European Union on the anti-government column? They have actively supported the protests from Brussels and in Maidan. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

hmm...well then maybe it's just the phrasing, with the flagicon it may seem that it's openly state sanctioned, while in reality it's probably done unofficially. So is it a flagicon issue? Do we change it to "Russian groups" or something like that? As for the EU...their only involvement has been moral support from politicians. Do they go under the leaders column? No, they aren't actively leading anything. At most "EU and US state officials" would count as a party...I guess.--Львівське (говорити) 03:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Russian groups" may easily refer to "Ethnic Russian groups of Ukraine", i.e. Russians from eastern/southern Ukraine opposing the protests. I think it would be best to say "Groups from Russia". That is as precise as it can get, in my opinion. Well, in this case moral support is as important, because it's not a war (yet, and hopefuly will not get that far), but a civil conflict, where physical force isn't the only major factor and wasn't a factor until mid-January, when the protests were more or less peaceful. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

sounds fine to me --Львівське (говорити) 03:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Երևանցի ^talk 04:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I ask that you also review this section, I voiced my issues above but no one responded.--Львівське (говорити) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Also, the "Resignation of some siloviks" section I would say delete altogether --Львівське (говорити) 02:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I will. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's clear WP:CHERRYPICKING.I think we need to reword the entire section. I'm sure many, if not most, of these claims are true, but we need to present it in a neutral way so that the reader knows what it's all about. Do you think we should just remove it for now and sort it out in the talk page? --Երևանցի ^talk 03:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I do. A lot of the stuff was already mentioned on the timeline; as you said, it's cherrypicked and then WP:SYN'd into "A said this but really B is true," original research. It's not like there is a journal article out there sourcing all the veracity of claims, we're not here to play judge and jury. I'm sure a section could be made of some of that info, but not in the current list format. Way too many lists going on at the moment IMO. --Львівське (говорити) 03:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I did notice the points mentioned above, but currently I don't have much time to spend on Wikipedia. So thanks guys for sorting things out! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Repressions against protesters and parliamentarian opposition

Reactions

I proposed that we review the reactions section of the article as many valid contributions have been deleted; even tough they are under the principles of Wikipedia.

Has Euromaidan ended?

I'm not sure about saying that Euromaidan ended on March 21, 2014. Even though the deal has begun to be signed, people still protest on Maidan and other places in Ukraine. There are new reasons for Euromaidan- to put pressure on the new government and to get Russia to withdraw the Russian troops from Crimea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Original research needs to be removed

In this section I've noted original research. The (new) user has injected a paragraph of original research and political smearing, and cites a jpeg from facebook. This obviously has no place on wiki. Someome want to take care of this?--Львівське (говорити) 03:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it can also be added there, but the fact is that this article (and other ones) have long claimed, without evidence, that the police shot all of the protesters. The available evidence is qutie to the contrary. I have not omitted (knowingly) any evidence from the relevant people who would have speical knowledge. Note I also have left in the doctor's speculation that Russian forces were behind the shootings, as it is obvious from her various interviews (which I can easily cite) that she was working in a tent hospital unit during the entire event and has no idea who did the shooting, and hence her comment is quite irrelevant. But it is not worth to argue over :). By the way I think your comment "pushing the Russian POV" indicates your bias. The sources I cited were: (1) officials of the Ukrainian interior ministry; (2) Estonian foreign minister; (3) pro-coup/revolution doctor helping victims who is part of the post-coup/revolution government; (4) head of Ukraine's security services (a Ukrainian) at the time of the sniper shootings; (5) current head of the investigative team into the shootings and a member of the post-coup/revolution government; (6) some opinion pieces that tie together some open knots; and (7) Russia's foreign minister re: claims he provided evidence to US and EU and who Russia thinks is responsible. If somehow this is "pro-Russian POV" then maybe it is simply that Russia is right on the facts, something which you may not accept for ideological reasons but it certainly is no reason to censor or delete the section. Sage (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is literally no evidence to suggest that the opposition was behind the shootings. Outside of speculation on "hunting rifles" and "grape shot" by the previous regime, and former regime officials who are now wanted for murder - their word doesnt mean much. Then you have Lavrov talking up words of nothing with no evidence, and you can't really use him as a credible source. You use the Paet info, even though he has denied the comments and that the Russian wire tap was out of context (he was relaying a theory on the ground). That an entire section exists now suggesting fringe theory concocted by Russia and the Yanukovych regime is undue weight and a huge POV push. --Львівське (говорити) 03:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

All the evidence available is there, people can reach their own decisions, they don't need you to be judge and jury. Nobody has been indicted yet for the sniper shootings, or please show evidence of who is wanted for "murder" - and of course it is worth pointing out that the people who have the power to indict others are also primary suspects (or, at a minimum, are the primary beneficiaries of the crimes, having seized power of 46 million people as a direct consequence). Wikipedia is not about editors deciding "their word does not mean much", this is for each reader to decide. And indeed I would argue current regime's opinion does not mean much, but it is also not for me to decide and I think the section should be objective and present the facts and let people decide what they will. And by the way your claim that "Russia is a fringe theory" once again exposes your extreme bias in the matter - you seem to me to be an avid Russophobe. Sage (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

your claim that Paet denied the tape recording appears to me to be false, I provided a reliable source where he admitted it. You have no source where he denies it, do you? Sage (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm just stating facts. Calling me a "Rusophobe" will not make your argument stronger. This is wikipedia, not r/conspiracy. --Львівське (говорити) 04:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You're claim that the position taken by Russia on the identity of the snipers is "fringe" is as absurd as saying Ukraine or EU position is "fringe". Maybe you disagree but it is not "fringe". Sage (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Lavrov's imaginary claims without actual evidence do amount to fringe theory, as it's a theory supported by no one else. The only material that matters is people on the ground, video evidence, ballistics reports, and the current investigation. There is way too much weight going to conspiracy theory at the moment. --Львівське (говорити) 04:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't care, if you want to go all the way to dispute over that I will take it all the way, I will not accept your statement that Russia's claim is "fringe". Basta. Now if someone inthe West disputes having received any evidence, then you can post a link to that, but until then, nobody cares about your speculation, Russia's opinion matters, and your's doesn't. The theory is supported by almost everyone else in that section, including Estonian foreign minister for crying out loud. Look I have said enough, come up with some new argument or remove your "hold", undo my changes and I report you, simple as that. By the way every single claim of responsibility, including that police did it, is a conspiracy theory, if you are using the legal definition of "conspiracy" - you cannot use these weasel words to discredit the best current theory on responsibility. Sage (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Putting words in the Estonian foreign minister's mouth and making things up won't get you very far. No one supports this fringe view outside of Russian state media. I could provide sources, and likely will when I tear this section apart, but for now I'm just letting you know how lopsided and ridiculous things are and warning you against lying by omission (as you are doing with Paet, again, for example) --Львівське (говорити) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You are accusing me of putting words in Paet's mouth? It is a recording! I listened to it! He put them in his own mouth! And he admitted it! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573923/Estonian-Foreign-Ministry-confirms-authenticity-leaked-phone-call-discussing-Kiev-snipers-shot-protesters-possibly-hired-Ukraines-new-leaders.html ; http://rt.com/news/estonia-confirm-leaked-tape-970/comments/page-2/ ; http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/ukraine-bugged-call-catherine-ashton-urmas-paet ; etc. etc. - if there is some counterpoint, please include it, I want article to be objective, I just don't know of any counterpoint! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage (talk • contribs) 04:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Some more versions of the satirical image: http://imgur.com/gallery/HJRghDR ; http://sdelanounas.ru/i/d/3/d/f_d3d3Lm15Y2l0eS1taWxpdGFyeS5jb20vaW1nczMvNjMyNTBfNjY0MzIzNjBfNTMyMjA0XzczMTQyNzk1Njg3ODczMF84NTQzNzYyMDdfbi5qcGc=.jpeg ; http://www.funnyjunk.com/channel/opinion-channel/Double+standards/xRgBLkE ; https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/1509878_10151991472626476_769477800_n.jpg - I can come up with hundreds of links if you like

None of this has any place on wikipedia, this isn't imgur.--Львівське (говорити) 04:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is actually much more appropriate than the "saticial maps". The images capture what a lot of people - obviously not you but I would say the majority of the world - thinks about these two events and the West's reactions. It is very poignant, powerful imagery, very strong satire, very expressive, and I think this is why you hate it so much. I have shown this image to many people and every single person saw the power of it. Much more powerful than these map images, few people will even knows\ what they mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage (talk • contribs) 04:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I would point out that the WashPost is not the world's arbiter of what is good satire and what is not. Satire stands on its own. All WashPost did was link to a Twitter image (which is just like a FB image), and to the Kyiv Post, which on its own is not a credible source. Nevetheless I didn't delete this section because I agree that there has been art that has sprung from these events and it is appropriate to include some of it. But it does not only need to be anti-Russian art, does it? Because that is all you will find on WashPost. WashPost is absolutely no authority on art or satire. Sage (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Washington Post and Kyiv Post are both reliable sources. WP reported on an image going viral, which makes it notable. You seeing some propaganda on Facebook does not give you the right to deem a meme notable, you are not a source, you are not a major newspaper. --Львівське (говорити) 05:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree Kyiv Post is reliable. You are misrepresenting WP, it said nothing about "going viral", only that "maps offering to explain the crisis have been flashing through the Web". Well my images clearly have also been "flashing through the Web", what is the difference? Ah yeah, one supports your POV, another does not. Sage (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Kyiv Post is very reliable. You saying it isn't doesn't change that fact. If you want to prove they aren't, I think you would need to file a grievance of some sort at WP:RSN --Львівське (говорити) 06:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it is blatant propaganda and there are plenty of examples of it. It prints lies and rumous - I think there are many many tweeters who are far more reliable than Kyiv Post. Yes it has a Wikipedia entry but that does not make it reliable. If I need to file a grievance, tell me, against what - where has the determination been made that Kyiv Post is a reliable source? Sage (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG --Львівське (говорити) 06:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your link does not say Kyiv Post is reliable source. Try again. What it does say is "well-established news outlets" are "generally considered to be reliable" but Kyiv Post is small shop, not a "well-established news outlet", and as a factual matter it is pro-American propaganda every second every day. And I can show lots of information on there is just publishing rumours and speculation as facts, recently I read some op-ed that claimed 95% of Russians want to see Ukraine drenched in blood or similar nonsense, this is really a hate outlet and not news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage (talk • contribs) 07:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It was an OR rant and soapboxing. I removed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I put a link to a blog instead of FB. It is not "original research" because it is a satirical image, it is presented for satire. If satire is to be deleted, then delete the entire section, I will agree as a compromise, but currently it is unbalanced - indeed the entire article is unbalanced but that's for another day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage (talk • contribs) 05:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A blog is also an unreliable source. Also the wording of the text is clearly POV. In fact it's basically a rant and WP:SOAPBOXING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well the Twitter image is equally unreliable. Wash. Post linking to it does not increase its reliability. And it is not a rant, it simply describes the image and what makes it satirical. If you have a better description, let's discuss! Thanks. Sage (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Re [1]. Ok. Look. This is not how it works. We don't keep junk content, sourced to facebook or some blog, because some user doesn't like the fact that the article includes other, reliably sourced, content. Stop with the edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The other satirical images are not reliably sourced - they are also Twitter images, Kyiv POst image, etc. Washington Post linking to an image as an example of what is happening on the Web does not make it "reliably sourced" - WashingtonPost is not vouching for the truth of the satirical image, did not create it, the image did not go through the editorial review process, etc. Sage (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it is clear there is only one image in the WaPo story which is "satirical", and that is the first referenced image, and it appears on Twitter. Sage (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What twitter image are you talking about? The other sentence in that section is sourced to the Washington Times, not twitter, though it may be *about* a twitter image. Also that sentence has a bunch of silly unwarrented tags which need to be removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

he added the tags as 'payback' for me tagging his soapbox. I'd revert them but...you know --Львівське (говорити) 06:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You guys are probably working together, I know there are many groups like this here, so let me make this clear: this is not a democracy, you cannot censor other viewpoints because you have some group that works together. No either satirical images are in, or they are out, I really don't care, but even the "satirical map" you provided has nothing to do with the subject of the article and just further reveals you to be anti-Russian and trying to score some cheap anti-Russian propaganda points. So again I don't want to say satire must be part of this article, I don't care, and I don't care that the image you love so much is off-topic, but if you put an image, I will also put one. And for last time, the WashPost does not say this image is "truth", does not even say it is "satirical", the fact that WashPost links to it does not change the nature of what it is, which is *satire*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage (talk • contribs) 07:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The images the Washington Post says are satire -they are not created by Washington Post. Read the article, it links to images made elsewhere, which it says are "flashing through the web". It is obviously a fluff piece and is not a source of information. The whole concept of "original research" makes absolutely no sense with a satirical image. It is satire if it is satirical, not because the WashPost links to it. Sage (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the satirical images section a bit to better reflect what the source actually states. Still, i think it should simply be removed. The fact that some Russians made a satirical image and posted it online is hardly notable.B01010100 (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Paet statement / propaganda

Should be careful for this one since 1 user already tried to cite RT, but it's already been debunked as propaganda a la the NBC phone call of Zimmerman when the tapes were doctored. But this is what im referring to:

Russia Today (or, RT, as the network prefers to be known these days) demonstrated its total independence from Moscow on Thursday when it published audio of a telephone call between Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and The European Union’s High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton. The call, which was randomly intercepted by highly capable but unidentified intelligence operatives, purports to reveal that Paet had informed Ashton that the EuroMaidan protesters hired snipers to shoot at EuroMaidan protesters, presumably to cause a pretext to topple the government (which eventually fell when Yanukovich fled and ordered local security guards to abandon government buildings). But the bombshell call removed the context of Paet’s comments. "I was talking on the theories there were about what happened...from both sides - among policemen and the people from the streets - that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,” he later said. “It is extremely regrettable that phone calls are being intercepted,” Paet added. “The fact that this phone call has been leaked is not a coincidence.”

--Львівське (говорити) 21:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Reuters confirmation its fake --Львівське (говорити) 22:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm relatively new here, so before starting to edit the real thing, just a question. This conversation between Paet and Ashton is called 'fake' and 'propaganda' in the remarks above. How is it fake? The conversation was confirmed by Estonia as legitimate. How is it propaganda? The remarks Paet made were about a conversation he had with a doctor who shared her opinion with him. Nothing more, nothing less. The exact wording of the conversation is available and can be checked. I don't see the propaganda in that, just a different view, which, subsequently wasn't being paid attention to. Question is whether this has enough 'value' to incorporate on the page. But fake it certainly was not, and propaganda, well, I'd say the conversation in itself is not. Bandar kecil (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Estonian spokesman stated that "We reject the claim that Paet was giving an assessment of the opposition's involvement in the violence."--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The relevant parts of the conversation should be included as the leak was extensively covered, albeit mostly from Russian media, along with later statements by Paet/Estonian Foreign Ministry. It's absence is conspicuous. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

euromaidan is sponsored by the us, everyone knows it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.210.32 (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

contrary to some edit summaries, removing original research is NOT original research

This edit [2] misrepresents sources and constitutes original research. Example "They found out that there is a lot of evidence that not only the law enforcement shot the protestors, but that snipers had also shot people from Hotel Ukraine which was at the time, 20 february, in the hands of the opposition.".

Beside that fact, this violates WP:UNDUE and does not reflect the general consensus in sources as to the nature of the snipers.

And quite frankly I am getting really sick and tired of dealing with an endless stream of obvious sleeper or brand new single purpose accounts which keep adding in the same crap over and over again and keep wasting people's time on the talk page with bad faithed arguments and soapboxing. As soon as a couple of them get banned, like some hydra, they seem to spring ten new heads.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Amen. --Львівське (говорити) 22:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Quoting directly from the sources: "On videos can also be appreciated that the oppositionists were shot on the street Institutska not only from the direction of the government buildings, but also by the Hotel Ukraina, which lay in her back.", "The hotel where numerous media representatives were housed, was fixed on that day in the hands of the opposition.". Where is that purported original research? Or did you just not even bother to read the sources as usual? And quite frankly i am getting really sick and tired of your endless stream of personal attacks.B01010100 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You know I don't even recall interacting with you before so I'm not sure where this 'endless stream of personal attacks' is suppose to be. Perhaps you're confusing your present persona with some other one of yours I've previously called out? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

And that is now the third time you've accused me of sockpuppetry, just like you always do with everyone who disagrees with you. Yes, no stream of personal attacks to be seen at all...B01010100 (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Besides, don't you see the irony in your crusade against imaginary sockpuppets, given that you're the one with the history of sockpuppeting? Or your continuous POV-pushing claimed as defense of NPOV, when you're the one who was blocked for a year from editing these articles for being a member of the Eastern Europe Mailing List POV-pushing campaign?B01010100 (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no "history of sockpuppeting". Stop lying. And for someone who's suppose to be brand new account (oh, I forgot, your account was created in August 2013 and in the next eight months made a whopping six edits, followed by about sixty since April 2) you sure do know a lot about Wikipedia history (however wrong that view is). If it smells like bullshit, it probably is bullshit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Right sorry, it wasn't sockpuppeting yourself, it was proxying for a blocked user - my mistake.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by B01010100 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by imaginary sockpuppets, single purpose accounts or verified socks get shot down it seems every other day. --Львівське (говорити) 22:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

True, but the issue is that accusing people of sockpuppeting is now Marek's conventional response whenever edits are made that do not conform to his POV, without presenting any evidence whatsoever. Many of those are bound to be imaginary, i know of at least one - myself. Besides, having that general response to new editors and every editor that disagrees with him even on talk is violating more policies than i'd care to reference here.B01010100 (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Many of those are bound to be imaginary, i know of at least one - myself.. Your claim looks ridiculous when juxtaposed with the fact that you just linked to an obscure project page from five years ago on a very narrow topic, which would also be hard to find even for people who have been editing Wikipedia for years. But you found it - it was a "correction" - within minutes. You know, there's lying, and then there's lying so blatantly that it's also an insult to intelligence. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A project page? It's an ArbCom case, hardly a "project page". Who is lying here? I didn't have to find it in minutes, i already had it. I merely did a quick check when you claimed that you had never sockpuppeted to see if i may have misremembered when reading it earlier, which i did.B01010100 (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Besides, "hard to find"? You do know there's a link on your user page to your block log which in turn links back directly to the case? If anything is insulting intelligence, it's claiming that it is hard to find. How long were you planning on keeping up this charade?B01010100 (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is where you get caught in a (another) obvious lie. My block log does not link directly back to the case. And that's because I was never "blocked" in the ArbCom case, despite your claims. In fact there's no direct links there at all to my old username, which you would have had to known in order to find the obscure link from five years ago. So you knew it from somewhere else. So sockpuppet. Just give it up, it's so freakin' obvious that I can't stop yawning.

Oh yeah, an ArbCom case is a project page though I guess you can argue semantics or technicalities and call that a "lie". And that's about all the time I'm prepared to waste on you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

also whats up with this edit? adding "implying they think it is funny." (drawing implications from text) is original research. User then says "Implying is not OR: read last sentence of source.". Also, who cares if the editor personally thought the funny picture was funny? Why is this relevant? --Львівське (говорити) 22:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that you've joined the club of "let's not read sources", even after i specifically pointed you TWICE to reading the source. Let me quote it for you: "Wait. Did we say this was funny?". Is that an implication that they think it is funny or not?B01010100 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You're still the one inferring it, and you're still giving it unjustified relevance. Maybe you should finally read up what OR is --Львівське (говорити) 22:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have read up on OR, hence why i know it's not OR. Let me quote WP:NOR: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context.". It doesn't change its meaning or implication, doesn't go beyond what is expressed in the source and is not inconsistent with the intention of the source. Maybe you could point what aspect of WP:NOR it violates? As to unjustified relevance, if you saw my edit you'll see i merely attributed the "funny" aspect to the source rather than putting it in WP's voice as it was before, so i could remove the neutrality tag.B01010100 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-of-foreign-affairs/news/violence-in-the-ukraine-is-unacceptable. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not an isolated issue: [4]— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on.--Львівське (говорити) 20:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Norden1990. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)