Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:40, 3 September 2013

Inapropriate sourcing

Ladies and gentlemen, I found at least one example of inaccurate sourcing. The claim that this shauvenistic obsolete concept is currently in use in Ukraine is citing a PDF text without any names and references which was, judging by the URL, produced by a demonstrably-partisan Kremlin-funded group called Russkiy Mir" ("Russian World"). Anyone can make sure how marginal and ridiculed such ideas are in Ukraine simply by googling it in any of the local RS news sites.

Moreover, I was unable to find any mentions of the article's subject even in that so-called "source". Deleting. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Funding is certainly not a criterion. If we start to analyze how much of Ukrainian press, NGO's and historical research is funded by US grants we will have to remove half of information on Ukraine from Misplaced Pages. This source (report of Kiev centre for political research and conflictology) is not better and not worse than most what is usually used by Ukrainian "patriots". And it is non-sense to deny that there are Ukrainian circles that connect Ukraine's future with Russia and the Orthodox world rather than with the West. The source is one clear example of it. By the way, the text says "the conception of the triune Russian (Ruthenian) people remains in different forms". So the criticism about the absence of the "exact name" in the source is also incorrect. --Shervinsky (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Funding certainly is a criterion. At least the ground for explicitly mentioning this fact next to your "refs". Especially regarding the Russian organization declaring opposition to the country's integration with the West (which is the official strategy of the Ukrainian state). I wonder if you could name a US, European or Chinese state-funded organization in Ukraine aiming at something similar. So, your source is demonstrably unreliable and needs to be supplemented beyond any reasonable doubt. I'm going to tag the article on that mater if you insist on your agenda-pushing.

As for the referenced file itself, it still contains no names of the authors or sources that they cite, and therefore is not a reliable research product. Which is only an additional ground for excluding it. Basically, it's an insider memo. My guess is that this "paper" was a product of a kickback operation aimed to siphon Russian public funds from the Russkiy Mir Foundation. I'm proud that some "Kiev centre for political research and conflictology" managed to promote Russian expansion so open-heartedly). Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, well, Shervinsky. You have been a busy propagandist, haven't you? Now that you've shoved this as a link into the Ukrainians article, you've made it abundantly clear that you are not quite a harmless, well intentioned newbie who's simply stumbling through some inadvertent edit conflict hiccups and antagonising contributors who are truly working at neutrality and a balanced presentation of issues. I think we now have ample evidence on this user to ask for serious intervention, don't you, Ukrained2012? And here was I writing copious notes on talk pages as to your questionable sources, having dignified your presence by treating your contributions as being in good faith, if not heavily biased, absolutist and of questionable translate, cut and paste methodology. Your agenda is no longer simply a little suspicious. Happy editing, indeed! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised to read posts like above. This is argumentum ad hominem in it's purity. Please try to discuss article matters, but not editor's matters. HOBOPOCC (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's good to see a fellow Wikipedian so concerned about the integrity of the article and espousing not attaching the person but the content. You certainly do a very good job at feigning to be quite the unbiased voice of reason. I'm very surprised to find that you're surprised considering