Talk:Zapad 2017/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Zapad 2017. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Pence's trip july 2017
Pence's visit cited as result of zapad. This needs mention in article.
Mike Pence in Estonia to ease Russia concerns in Baltic
Pence visiting Estonia, Georgia and Montenegro to signal support and draw line under perceived aggression from Moscow.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/mike-pence-estonia-ease-russia-concerns-baltic-170730062303387.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipietime (talk • contribs) 02:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Sources in Russian vs sources in English
Quite many of the references are in Russian. I bet they are accurate but why can't people add sources in English? There are plenty of them over here http://eng.belta.by/all-rubric-news/viewSuzet/army-exercise-zapad-2017-37/ Vedarough (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
NPOV dispute
The article is based on information from Russian sources exclusively, which are either government controlled or sponsored. It has been created with a sole purpose to portray Zapad 2017 military exercises as minor and defensive, while neutral sources provide radically different information: offensive and among the largest exercises in history. Both views should be represented in the article: information provided by Russian Ministry of Defense and Russian media, along with information and reports coming from other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20000roads (talk • contribs) 14:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
NPOV and indepth coverage is critical to this article, as we are describing events and facts of one of the largest military drills that potentially leads to World War III. Thus please no propaganda, no POV pushing.
Which sources can be qualified as neutral? We have ex-USSR on the one hand and NATO countries on the other hand. Sources residing in the two kinds of countries cannot be considered neutral. Vedarough (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Sputnik and sources alike should be used as references due to their track record: [1]
Suggesting addition of the following sections to the article:
- - Personnel and equipment estimates by independent sources. This is because Russian MOD and state-controlled media have a history of deliberately presenting false numbers.
- - Goals of the exercises as seen by independent experts and observers, in addition to whatever is stated by Russian media or military.
- - Opinions and speculations about possible outcomes of the exercise, as Russia is know for starting wars under the cover of exercises:
[6] [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20000roads (talk • contribs) 22:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)#Perpetuating_falsehoods
- ^ https://jamestown.org/program/what-do-the-zapad-2013-exercises-reveal-part-one/
- ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-troops-syria-port-tartus-2012-3
- ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2015/08/25/kremlin-censors-rush-to-erase-inadvertent-release-of-russian-casualties-in-east-ukraine/#76d41f0d9c58
- ^ http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-massive-zapad-military-exercises-scare-the-world-20199
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
- ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/russia-military-exercises-ukraine-border
- I have tried to add Western assessmants, which were removed. There is nothing to discuss here: please add what you feel should be added.Axxxion (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
RfC references in Zapad 2017 military exercise article
Should the article be limited to numbers provided by Russian Ministry of Defense and Russian media, or are independent sources allowed as well? Russia has proven history of faking numbers, thus I believe references from independent sources should be allowed. 20000roads (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The West also has a proven history of faking information. Chemical weapons in Iraq anyone? I suggest numbers should be cited from both sides. Until properly definied neutral sources are available, please, refrain from describing them as neutral because it seems to me the Cold War never stopped. Vedarough (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
RfC Goals and theories surrounding Zapad 2017 military exercise
Does section named "Goals and theories" have a right to exist in the article? There is a number of theories and scenarios of how the Zapad 2017 may escalate into a real military conflict. I believe it is important to list references to these theories and scenarios, as 2 previous military exercises ended up as wars. 20000roads (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest you stop flooding the article with incomprehensible bilge, to begin with. The event will happen in a few weeks, and we shall see.Axxxion (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I believe it is important to include information from neutral sources as well. We cannot rely on data provided by Russian MoD and state controlled agencies. Also you should not be removing NPOV tag and reverting edits without discussion and inviting opinions of other editors. This article is not a private property or playground for trolls.20000roads
- But it has to be in English, not in gibberish.Axxxion (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Also, this article is about the Zapad 2017, not about Zapad exercises generally.Axxxion (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- But it has to be in English, not in gibberish.Axxxion (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I apologise for the harshness of my first posting on this thread. I did not intend to offend any one, but the text had been unacceptable on a number of counts: it simply was not quite readable.Axxxion (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Goals and theories are a bit early or too late. The wargames will end in four days. Isn't it too much effort to add goals and theories to such a brief event? Vedarough (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Reversions
User:Vladimir serg would you please explain why you keep reverting changes to this article? Just saying "nonsense" as you did here and here is not OK and not sufficient justification. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)