Talk:Do not buy Russian goods!

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia = Lolz[edit]

The fact that pages like this continue to exist shows what a joke of a propaganda platform Wikipedia has become. My favorate part is how all of the citations are in Ukrainian and Russian so they cannot be verified by an English user. This article is beyond a joke. Wikipedia is lolz. 2601:B:BB80:80D:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPoV violation[edit]

I see that the article is about a campaign and about support of the campaign while criticism and non-support of the campaign is not represented. This ought to be fixed. --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 16:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a npov violation and I put the tag. Campaigns are not encyclopedic articles--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provide any argument violation of NPoV--Trydence (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Do not buy Russian goods! is a defacto biased statement, because it introducew bias. See
    See also: Wikipedia:Words to watch
  2. Bias in sources
    See also: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources, and Wikipedia:Neutrality of Sources
  3. Naming violation (Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic)--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said criticism is not represented there. Did you see Do not buy Russian goods!#Criticism? Did you see that paragraph is confirmed by references? --User:Tohaomg 11:58, Monday November 24, 2014 (UTC)

1,3. Do not buy Russian goods! - it's name of campain, commonly used name. 2. The information in the article confirmed by authoritative sources. The article have paragraph "Criticism".--Trydence (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't proved anything and you didn't answer for your npov violations. Why did you remove the tag?--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using words "do not buy" is not violating of neutrality because it is the exact name of the campaign. Names can not be changed. Unfortunately, there are no other sources than with proukrainian point of view, because all media in Russia are controled by government and it strongly want to hide that campaign. --Tohaomg 1 December 2014 20:13 — Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kalogeropoulos I don't see the NPoV violation because
    • "Do not buy Russian goods" is a proper name, an official title of the campain. For example, if the movie or a song would have this title would you also tag an article about it as NPoV violation? Another article exists with very similar campain name Don't! Buy! Thai!, but for some reason you put no interest in it.
    • You said campains are not encyclopedic articles. This is not true. This campain is notable, therefore the article about should exist. Read general notability guidelines.
    • The wording of article is neutral. It is mostly dry historic article without bias in wording. Moreover, the section Do not buy Russian goods!#Criticism exists with strong critisim on the campain. I also don't see how could you find bias in sources. Most sources are in Ukrainian and Russian and are just news articles that do not cast any opinion. Could you please point specific sources that you think are biased?
  • So far, I see no evidence NPov violation and the tag should be removed.--Krystofer (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This "article" is by nature pov pushing. An no one should use ukrainian sources de facto pov to advertise his case. P.S. I speak both Russian and Ukranian, don't fool your self. The fact is that you should use english speaking sources to prove npov, since you adress to English speaking people. But that is secondary issue--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far I see just wording from you, not clear argumentation. "This "article" is by nature pov pushing", "campaigns are not encyclopedic articles" are not arguments. There is not a single concrete point that you stated so far, except the one about the title of the article (which I disproved). The use of non-english sources is not NPoV violation. If you speak Russian and Ukrainian I ask you again to point specific sources in the article that violate NPoV. I might be wrong, but it seems that you have some personal reasons to dislike not the article, but the topic. I think so because you are not interested in very similar articles like Boycott Chinese products, Don't! Buy! Thai!.--Krystofer (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Buy anti-Russian dis-information

Leaving aside the careful undermining of anyone questioning the anti-Russian campaign on the Talk page, does not this article break all the non-pov pushing rules? At a time when the US government is starting a new Cold War, it is questionable that Wikipedia should be highlighting such crude anti-Russian dis-information. Would Wikipedia consider it a fitting encyclopedic article if someone was planning a campaign of treason and sedition against the USA? Would you give ISIS a platform?

Articles on Wikipedia are kept based on their notability, not on your personal opinion of the subject. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles on heavily politicized topics.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonviolence[edit]

If the campaign really uses the picture in the infobox and phrases like "Putin is a dickhead", how is this nonviolent? In many countries, this would be censored on television due to profanity. --2.245.110.84 (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Matryoshka doll with shark teeth, does not symbolize violence in the movement, but the voracity of Russia against its neighbor (alleged by the Ukrainians).
PauloMSimoes (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And where is the violence?--Trydence (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can anyone fail to understand the underlying and violence nature of this doll? Since the shark teeth image is a clear attempt to stir up anti-Russian feeling - should not Wikipedia delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.86.61 (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not buy US goods! Uncle Sam is a "Dickhead and Fucker"[edit]

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

So, how many folks consider that such a nasty and vicious attempt to undermine the US should have any place in Wikipedia?

The talk page is meant for comments about the article, not your personal opinions about the boycott.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian op-ed[edit]

[1]. First, this is an op-ed. Can't use it to state stuff in Wikipedia voice. Or even attribute it to the Guardian. Second, it's not about the subject of this article, so it's UNDUE (and coatrackin'). Third, note all the "amendments" made to the article - it got a whole bunch of stuff wrong (there's actually all kinds of other inaccuracies there as well). That pretty much makes it an unreliable source in this case, even for the writer's opinion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its just reporting a view. RS is sound, similar used in V Putin by you I think. Also as you know from V Putin article 'a whole bunch of stuff wrong' matters not. RS does. Ref is RS SaintAviator lets talk 09:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's an op-ed, hence the opinion of a single person.
2. It's not about the topic of this article.
3. You are doing WP:SYNTH by suggesting with your edit that the general economic problems in Ukraine, which have many causes, have to do with this campaign.
4. Or else, you're just trying to insert random negative info about Ukraine into the article for POV reasons.
5. The op-ed piece had, what, SIX (!) "amendments"? I.e. corrections. I'm sorry but when a source has to make this many corrections, regardless of where it comes form, its reliability is cast in doubt. Like mentioned before, if this info is legit, you can find other, non op-ed sources to back it up.
6. Please stop edit warring and get consensus for inclusion. The burden for inclusion is on you.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This publication simply tells nothing on the subject of the page, i.e. "Do not buy Russian goods!" campaign. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Motivation is everything! What makes a person behave irrationally? Support Ukraine for instance, set up secret networks. This policy is motivated by wanting to get back at Russia. Its a losers response. Spite, rage. This is driving the policy. Im starting to think the fascist angle should be added too. SaintAviator lets talk 22:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the points raised rather than replying with strange non-sequiturs. I have no idea what you're rambling on about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You often say that as cover for IDontLikeIt. You know Fascists have policy influence. We from the west fought the fascists in WW2. Now they are back in Ukraine. Its notable SaintAviator lets talk 01:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SaintAviator, your recent comment on this and related talk pages have been particularly non-constructive. Instead of making suggestions for article improvement or addressing relevant points in a discussion you've been using these talk pages as a forum for personal opinions and appear to view it as an opportunity to bad mouth and insult Ukraine. Please stop. It's WP:TENDENTIOUS. My objection is not "IDontLikeIt". There's numbers 1 through 5 right above I listed which explain why your behavior and edits are not encyclopedic. Address'em.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did and disagree. SaintAviator lets talk 01:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Marek and My best wishes - inserting material into this article that has nothing to do with the topic does not enhance the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia, nor does it advance its mission. And although I find SaintAviator's talk page rants entertaining in the short term - these are counterproductive in the short term and the long term. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im looking at a rephrasing SaintAviator lets talk 06:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fascists[edit]

[2] Seems notable. 'Ukrainian authorities and mainstream opinion in Ukraine continue to show unacceptable ignorance of the danger from the far right and even openly neo-Nazi forces, cooperating with them in elections and allowing them to take positions within law enforcement.' SaintAviator lets talk 01:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fascists pushed for the boycott. 'Kiev has now handed the Kremlin "evidence" for Putin’s claim that Russia is facing off against fascists. Ukraine’s parliament, the Supreme Rada, passed a draft law last month honoring organizations involved in mass ethnic cleansing during World War Two'. Oh Dear! [3] SaintAviator lets talk 06:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analogy to Anti-American Boycott Actions[edit]

This Action has Paralleles to Anti-Americna Actions in Latin America.--95.114.71.226 (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Do not buy Russian goods!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Do not buy Russian goods!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poor English in quotation[edit]

Here is the text in the article: Although it is "not patriotic, but to support entrepreneurs "with ruble", it is to give opportunity for the development of new projects, that is changing world for the better". Was this originally posted in English? If so, we should probably rephrase into an indirect quote so as not to embarrass the poor man. If it was originally posted in Russian, we need to use a grammatical translation, so as not to embarrass ourselves. --Khajidha (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Do_not_buy_Russian_goods!&oldid=1201578067"